TPF : Economics & War

[Gnomon]

Economic slow down due to Covid-19 good?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/517811


Every time the economy slowed down the US went to war; — Book273

A century ago, William James described the need for an occasional external (or internal) motivating threat to the Body Politic as the "moral equivalent of war", for reviving the spirit of national unity, and the discipline to weather the disrupting storms. Later, Jimmy Carter gave that same label to the impending climate & energy crisis. Perhaps the current Pandemic has served a similar purpose, by challenging our national political unity, and our communal resolve to repel the threat. Unfortunately, the economy seems to have come through the crisis in better shape than the union. :worry:

Moral Equivalent of War : "James considered one of the classic problems of politics: how to sustain political unity and civic virtue in the absence of war or a credible threat"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Equ ... War_speech

[Gnomon]

Great point! William James (aside from being one of my favorite psychologist-turned-philosopher's) was also a self proclaimed pacifist. In your view, how did he reconcile his pacifism with the so-called human need to fight wars? — 3017amen

James was both a Pacifist and a Pragmatist. Which means that, if we can't change the warlike nature of humanity, we must learn to live with it. Perhaps by channeling our aggressive instincts into less destructive activities -- such as win-win businesses. Ironically, Steven Pinker attributes our "long peace" (since WWII) to global trade -- due in part to the inherent morality of Capitalism. It's only when win-lose capitalists (I won't mention a recent example) fail to respect their trading partners, that war becomes a plausible option.

William James on Peace & War :
One hundred years ago the philosopher and psychologist William James set down his thoughts on war and peace in an essay for McClure’s magazine titled “The Moral Equivalent of War.” In that essay he examined the role of the martial virtues in keeping a society vigorous and proud and explained why pacifism, in the merely negative sense of opposition to war, could not succeed.
http://blogs.britannica.com/2010/03/wil ... e-and-war/

Pinker explains ‘The Long Peace’ :
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/ ... ong-peace/

Steven Pinker explains how capitalism is killing war :
https://www.vox.com/2015/6/4/8725775/pinker-capitalism

Capitalism and Morality : First, capitalism is moral because — unlike socialism — it respects individuals, their rights, and their pursuit of happiness. In fact, capitalism requires this respect for individuals and rights. This is why capitalism often is defined as a social system, not an economic system, which protects individual rights.
https://www.johnlocke.org/update/capita ... -morality/

[Gnomon]

One obvious takeaway was the lessons in extremism (both sides). With few exceptions, we need more moderate's in both our political and religious institutions. I think Aristotle was right — 3017amen

Yes. That's why I am a Militant Moderate.

Ironically, immoderate Trump faced-down "little rocket man", and didn't get into a shooting war with North Korea. That may be because Kim Jong Un was afraid that he was just crazy enough to push the red button. :joke:

[Gnomon]

Perhaps James was right, concerning the human condition, — 3017amen

I just noticed that, in The Moral Equivalent of War speech, William James came to the same conclusion, to explain why major wars are becoming fewer & farther between, that Steven Pinker discovered in his historical research, a century later. Human nature hasn't changed so much, but human culture has made war & conquest a less attractive way to obtain resources, than peaceful trade.

"Modern war is so expensive that we feel trade to be a better avenue to plunder;"
___W. James, 1906
http://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Pajares/moral.html

"so the arrival of the infrastructure of trade and commerce reduces some of the sheer exploitative incentives of conquest."
___S. Pinker, 2012
https://www.vox.com/2015/6/4/8725775/pinker-capitalism

[Gnomon]

In layman's terms, are you saying you're an extremist? — 3017amen

"Militant Moderate". Perhaps I should have used a smilie icon after that remark, to indicate that I was kidding. :joke:

Another way to put it, is that, philosophically, I'm an "extreme anti-extremist". Or maybe, I'm "militantly against militancy". As bruised & battered Rodney King plaintively pleaded : "why can't we all just get along".

Actually, I am mostly apathetic about polarized politics. That's because, in most cases, "I don't have a horse in that race". So, I don't have emotional attachments to the "things of this world". Ironically, my fundamentalist religious upbringing inadvertently gave me one philosophical meme useful for dealing with the chaos of the crazy world : "I am in the world, but not of the world". The image that suggests to me is of "hovering above the fray".

My position on most topics is vaguely somewhere in the middle of the range. I am OK with some Conservative positions and with some Liberal positions, but not with their polarized extreme end-states. Unfortunately, when the shooting starts, I get caught in the crossfire.

It's a long hard climb to get above the frayed fabric of human relations :
https://probaway.files.wordpress.com/20 ... ared_5.jpg